“The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore.”

Much discussion and analysis has ensued in the aftermath — and I’m sure it will continue in the coming days and weeks.

Some are purporting that even if the collusion between the publishers proves to be true, Apple might walk away squeaky clean. A report at CNET noted why this may be the case:

“One reason lies in the Justice Department’s 36-page complaint, which recounts how publishers met over breakfast in a London hotel and dinners at Manhattan’s posh Picholine restaurant, which boasts a “Best of Award of Excellence” from Wine Spectator magazine. The key point is that Apple wasn’t present.”

Bryan Chaffin at the Mac Observer argued that yes, collusion most probably occurred but that it will be a mistake to undo it: “Doing so will clear the way for Amazon to dump books below price, taking ever more share (and power) in the book industry — that is the greater anticompetitive threat.”

On the flipside, Mike Cane argued on his xBlog that the suit didn’t go far enough and that the DoJ needs to sue Apple again. In a letter sent to all of the Department of Justice attorneys listed in the antitrust suit papers filed, he said:

“The advantage iPhone and iPad owners have in using the iBooks app is that they can browse and purchase eBooks from within that app. It’s a seamless customer experience.

By contrast, all eBook apps from competing eBook stores — such as those from Amazon, Kobo, Barnes & Noble, and others — cannot offer an identical shopping experience. They are disallowed by Apple. Apple has demanded from each of its iBookstore competitors a 30% cut of any purchases made using Apple APIs for what is called ‘in-app purchasing.’

To me, this is every bit as much restraint of trade as the collusive price-fixing that made the Department bring Apple and its co-conspirators before the court for remedy.”

Individual U.S. states have thrown in as well: 16 State Attorneys have filed suit, alleging that agency pricing cost consumers $100 million.

“The filings suggest that users could be offered titles at a variety of prices depending on the ads’ prominence. They add that the products shown could be determined by the type of book being read, or even the contents of a specific chapter, phrase or word … It suggests users could be offered ads as hyperlinks based within the book’s text, in-laid text or even ‘dynamic content’ such as video. Another idea suggests boxes at the bottom of a page could trail later chapters or quotes saying ‘brought to you by Company A.'”

B&N one-ups Amazon

A close friend recently told me a story highlighting an issue with his Kindle: While reading in the car on a road trip, he had to give up his Kindle and resort to the Kindle app on his iPad to keep reading when it got dark. Maybe he should have waited and bought a Nook.

“The GlowLight resembles B&N’s flagship Nook Simple Touch — same 6-inch touchscreen display, same size and includes the same internal parts. The Nook Simple Touch with GlowLight, however, is slightly lighter at just 6.95 ounces, compared to the Nook Simple Touch’s 7.48 ounces … The GlowLight technology consists of LED lights located at the top of the Nook’s screen and an anti-glare screen protector. The light is evenly scattered across the screen and is adjustable via the menu.”